Lord, Christopher (2018). The legitimacy of exits from the European Union, In Richard Bellamy; Joseph Lacey & Kalypso Nicolaidis (ed.),
European Boundaries in Question (Journal of European Integration Special Issues).
Routledge.
ISBN 9781138576780.
2.

Can a directly elected European Parliament help deliver standards by which the European Union can be indirectly legitimated through its component national democracies? This article argues that the Union can be indirectly legitimate where it helps member state democracies meet their own obligations to their own publics. The Union can do just that by managing externalities in ways needed to secure core values of justice, democracy and freedom from arbitrary domination within member states. Yet that poses a predicament: for if any one member state has an interest in imposing negative externalities or in freeriding on positive externalities provided by another, then so may its voters and democratic institutions. The article argues a directly elected European Parliament can help manage that predicament both by identifying externalities and by ensuring their regulation meets standards of public control, political equality and justification owed to individual national democracies.

Justifications for extending the Union’s boundaries to include new Member States have been much discussed. Only since the Brexit referendum have justifications for shrinking the Union’s boundaries through withdrawals of Member States received the same attention. This paper uses concepts of historical responsibility to ask whether decisions Member States take together constrain the manner in which any one of them can justifiably exit the Union? It argues that much depends on how far Members States make laws together that are important to the lives of their citizens; that pre-empt their subsequent choices; and which affect their ability to manage collective action problems.

Lord, Christopher (2014). On the parliamentary control of a reformed monetary union?, In John Erik Fossum & Agustin Jose Menendez (ed.),
The European Union in crises or the European Union as crises?.
ARENA Centre for European Studies.
ISBN 978-82-93137-46-7.
Chapter 14.
s 611
- 637

Lord, Christopher (2014). Problems of Compound Representation in the European Union After Lisbon, In François Foret & Yann-Sven Rittelmeyer (ed.),
The European Council and European Governance: The Commanding Heights of the EU.
Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-85733-8.
Kapittel 10.
s 167
- 185

Lord, Christopher & Pollak, Johannes (2012). Unequal Representation in the European Parliament. A Comment on the Ruling by the German Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty, In Tatjana Evas; Ulrike Liebert & Christopher Lord (ed.),
Multilayered Representation in the European Union. Parliaments, Courts and the Public Sphere.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
ISBN 978-3-8329-7218-9.
4.
s 59
- 72

Lord, Christopher (2011). Legitimate and Democratic? The EU's International Role, In Christopher Hill & Michael Smith (ed.),
International Relations and the European Union.
Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780199544806.
6.

Lord, Christopher (2011). The political theory and practice of parliamentary participation in the Common Security and Defence Policy. Journal of European Public Policy.
ISSN 1350-1763.
18(8), s 1133- 1150 . doi:
10.1080/13501763.2011.615202

Lord, Christopher (2008). Is there a role for parliamentary participation in European security co-ordination?, In Dirk Peters; Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Deitelhoff (ed.),
The Parliamentary Control of European Security Policy.
ARENA.
Chapter 2.
s 29
- 49

Lord, Christopher (2008). Two Constitutionalisms? A Comparison of British and French attempts to legitimise the Constitutional Treaty. Journal of European Public Policy.
ISSN 1350-1763.
15(7), s 1001- 1018

Lord, Christopher (2008). Two constitutionalisms? A comparison of British and French government attempts to justify the Constitutional Treaty. Journal of European Public Policy.
ISSN 1350-1763.
15, s 1001- 1018 . doi:
10.1080/13501760802310421

The UK is now one of the most unequal societies in Europe. The country’s acute territorial differences are only likely to multiply in the coming years. The polarisation between the political right and left is staggering. The society is also now divided by generations. In light of the above, Christopher Lord (ARENA) argues that Brexit is both a product of the breakdown in the British social and political system and a likely source of further crises within it.

It might be thought that Brexit is just a case of the UK getting honest with itself and its partners. The UK never really accepted European integration. Hence, it should never have joined a body committed to an ‘ever closer Union between the peoples of Europe’ (even allowing for the convenient plural of the word ‘peoples’). Yet, the UK’s attitude to integration has not solely been one of aversion to European centre formation. If centre formation, segmentation into a differentially integrated Union and fragmentation are three possible trajectories of European integration, the UK contributed to a major act of European centre formation: namely, the formation of the single market. Elsewhere, British Governments settled for largely constructive forms of segmentation. One thing the UK has not been is a source of fragmentation. Of course, Brexit may change that. Brexit may be both necessary and impossible: something the British Government must do and something it cannot do. Brexit could fragment both the UK and the EU. Yet, a continuation of ‘constructive segmentation’ by other means – or even renewed centre formation – cannot be fully ruled out as possible outcomes of the Brexit referendum.